Does the world itself have to feel alive, or is it enough for it to feel mysterious?

Something I keep circling back to with exploration-focused games is whether the environment needs to actually feel like it's doing something, breathing, changing, reacting, or whether a really well-constructed sense of mystery is enough to keep you moving through it. Because those feel like two different design philosophies to me. One says the world should feel inhabited and dynamic, so you're discovering something that exists on its own terms. The other says the world just has to make you feel like the next area is hiding something worth seeing, even if nothing there is technically alive or responsive. And I wonder if one of those is more sustainable over the length of a full game. Like, mystery might pull you forward faster, but does it run out? Whereas a world that feels genuinely alive might be slower to hook you but hold up better the longer you're in it? For games where exploration is the whole point and combat is never part of the picture, which one do you think actually carries the experience?